XXXXXXXXXX. 

Dear XXXXXXXXXX:

	The Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review (DoD PDBR) reviewed your application and found your separation disability rating and your separation from the Army for disability with severance pay to be accurate.  I have reviewed the Board’s recommendation and record of proceedings (copy enclosed), and I accept its recommendation.  I regret to inform you that your application to the DoD PDBR is denied.  

	This decision is final.  Recourse within the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army is exhausted; however, you have the option to seek relief by filing suit in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXX.  	CASE:  PD-2017-05089
BRANCH OF SERVICE:  Army 	SEPARATION DATE:  20070228

SUMMARY OF CASE:  Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was a National Guard E5, Construction Equipment Repair Specialist, medically separated for “chronic neck pain” with a disability rating of 10%.  

CI CONTENTION:  The condition continues to worsen and negatively affects daily activities.  The complete submission is at Exhibit A.  

SCOPE OF REVIEW:  The panel’s scope of review is defined in DoDI 6040.44.  It is limited to review of disability ratings assigned to those conditions determined by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to be unfitting for continued military service, and when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), but determined by the PEB to be not unfitting or non-compensable.  Any conditions outside the panel’s defined scope of review, and any contention not requested in this application, may remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.  The panel’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections when appropriate.  The panel’s assessment of the PEB rating determination is based on review of medical records and all available evidence relevant to application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards for the unfitting medical condition(s) at the time of separation.  The panel has neither the role nor the authority to compensate for post-separation progression or complications of service-connected conditions; that role and authority is granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which operates under a different set of laws.  The panel gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of disability at the time of separation.  

RATING COMPARISON:  

SERVICE USAPDA - 20070206	VARD - 20071105	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Chronic Neck Pain 	5243	10%	Degenerative Disc Disease, Cervical Spine	5242	10%	20070925	
COMBINED RATING:  10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS:  10%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:  

Chronic Neck Pain.  According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI’s neck condition began in August 2002 without history of injury or trauma.  An MRI in September 2005 showed multi-level disc disease involving C3-5 with mild to moderate central canal and foramina (nerve exiting area) narrowing, but surgery was not recommended.  At the 17 October 2006 physical therapy (PT) range of motion (ROM) examination, 4 months prior to separation, showed flexion to 40 degrees (normal 45) and combined ROM of 305 degrees (normal 340).  The 14 November 2006 MEB NARSUM examination, 3 months prior to separation, noted complaints of headaches secondary to neck pain.  The physical examination (PE) revealed cervical spine tenderness and painful motion.  

At the 25 September 2007 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 7 months after separation, the CI reported persistent neck pain radiating down the (unidentified) shoulder to the fingers and intermittent numbness in the fingers.  The CI estimated missing work one day per week due to the neck condition.  The PE revealed normal forward flexion of the cervical spine and a combined painful ROM of 235 degrees.  

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  The PEB rated the neck condition 10%, coded 5243 (intervertebral disc syndrome), citing forward flexion at 40 degrees, tenderness and painful limitation of motion.  The VA also rated the neck condition 10%, coded 5242 (degenerative arthritis of the spine) based on the C&P examination, citing forward flexion greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 40 degrees.  The panel agreed that a 10% rating, but no higher, was justified for limitation of flexion (greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 40 degrees) as reported on the PT examination proximate to separation.  After due deliberation, considering all the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the panel concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB’s adjudication for the neck condition.   

BOARD FINDINGS:  In the matter of the neck condition and IAW VASRD §4.71, the panel recommends no change in the PEB adjudication.  There are no other conditions within the panel’s scope of review for consideration.  Therefore, the panel recommends no modification or re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.